Biopestisides in Ipm 1

7/29/2019 Biopestisides in Ipm 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/biopestisides-in-ipm-1 1/21

Biopesticides

Biopesticides (also known as biological pesticides) are pesticides derived from such natural materials as

animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. For example, canola oil and baking soda have pesticidal

applications and are considered biopesticides.

Green Alternatives - Biopesticides

Biopesticides or biological pesticides are derived from natural materials like animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. For example, garlic, mint, neem, papaya and baking soda all have pesticidal applications and are considered biopesticides. According to the U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA), at the end of 1998, there were approximately 175 registered biopesticide active ingredients and 700 products. The most commonly used biopesticides areliving organisms (bacteria, viruses and fungi) which are pathogenic for the pest of interest. These

include biofungicides (Trichoderma), bioherbicides ( Phytopthora) and bioinsecticides ( Bacillusthuringiensis).

Types of Biopesticides

Biopesticides fall into three major classes:

1. Microbial pesticides

2. Plant pesticides

3. Biochemical pesticides

• Microbial pesticides consist of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus, or protozoan) as the active ingredient. Microbial pesticides can control many different kindsof pests, although each separate active ingredient is relatively specific for its target pest.For example, there are fungi that control certain weeds, and other fungi that kill specificinsects.

1

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tbio.html#Microbial%20pesticides

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tbio.html#Plant%20pesticides

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tbio.html#Biochemical%20pesticides

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tbio.html#Plant%20pesticides

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tbio.html#Biochemical%20pesticides

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tbio.html#Microbial%20pesticides



The most widely used microbial pesticides are subspecies and strains of Bacillusthuringiensis, or Bt. Each strain of this bacterium produces a different mix of proteins,and specifically kills one or a few related species of insect larvae. While some Bt'scontrol moth larvae found on plants, other Bt's are specific for larvae of flies andmosquitoes. The target insect species are determined by whether the particular Bt

produces a protein that can bind to a larval gut receptor, thereby causing the insect larvaeto starve.

• Plant pesticides are pesticidal substances that plants produce from genetic material thathas been added to the plant. For example, scientists can take the gene for the Bt pesticidal protein and introduce the gene into the plant's own genetic material. Then the plant,instead of the Bt bacterium, manufactures the substance that destroys the pest. Both the protein and its genetic material are regulated by EPA; the plant itself is not regulated.

• Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic

mechanisms. Conventional pesticides, by contrast, are generally synthetic materials that

directly kill or inactivate the pest. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such as

insect sex pheromones that interfere with mating as well as various scented plant extractsthat attract insect pests to traps. Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a

substance meets the criteria for classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA has

established a special committee to make such decision.

Advantages of Biopesticides

• Biopesticides usually are inherently less harmful than conventional pesticides.

• Biopesticides generally affect only the target pest and closely related organisms, in

contrast to broad-spectrum conventional pesticides that may affect organisms as different

as birds, insects, and mammals.

• Biopesticides often are effective in very small quantities and often decompose quickly,

thereby resulting in lower exposures and largely avoiding the pollution problems caused

by conventional pesticides.

• When used as a component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs,

biopesticides can greatly decrease the use of conventional pesticides, while crop yields

remain high.

Biopesticides and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Introduction

While giving information about insect and disease resistant transgenic crops, we discussed about

the losses to crop yields caused due to infestation by a variety of pests and diseases. An

estimated one third of global agricultural production is destroyed by over 20,000 species of field

and storage pests. According to some estimates, the crop losses due to arthropods, diseases and

weeds on a worldwide basis have increased from 34.49%in 1965 to 42.1% in 1990, despite

1



intensive pest control measures. In terms of money, these losses amount to US $ 300 billion

annually. These losses account only for crop production losses, so that if we include post-harvest

losses due to storage pests, etc., the total losses in developing countries reach a staggering level

of about 60-70%.

In recent years, strategies to control these pests and diseases, largely involved short-term, single

technology interventions, the most important of these being the use of pesticides. However, an

increased use of pesticides has led to following problems:

(i) the development of resistance in the pests against these toxic chemicals (insecticide

resistance has been recorded in about 50 species); this necessitated the use of stronger

doses of insecticides at increasing cost to the farmer and to the society; for instance, in

South Asia, cotton needs to be sprayed 15-16 times now, as against 5-6 sprays that

were needed 10 years ago.

(ii) Ecological disruptions.

(iii) Environmental pollution, involving pollution of soil, water and air.

(iv) Health problems (an estimated three million cases of pesticide poisoning are annually

reported, which include 20,000 deaths).

(v) Uneconomic crop production.

In view of the above problems with the use of pesticides, there is a world-wide search for

economically acceptable alternatives to the use of these toxic chemicals. One such alternative

that was discussed in is the use of insect resistant transgenic crops that carry genes like Cry

genes(s) derived from Bacillus thuringiensis or protease inhibitor genes (e.g. cowpea trypsin

inhibitor genes (e.g. cowpea trypsin inhibitor gene, CpTI) derived from some legumes.Considerable effort is, however, directed towards the search of other alternatives also. As a

result, newer technologies have either already emerged or still emerging. For instance, a number

of less hazardous chemicals, as well as less non-toxic biologically based products have been

recommended and tried. The strategy has been described as ‘integrated pest management

(IPM)’.

Even in this so-called integrated pest management (IPM), however, single technologies like

biocontrol, host plant resistance, or biopesticide are recommended and used. It has, therefore,

been argued that the above therapeutic interventions provide only short-term reliefs and that

instead of mere replacing toxic chemicals by more sophisticated biologically based agents(which are expensive to use and slow to give the results), we need to promote naturally occurring

renewable biological agents and other inherent strengths as components of the total agricultural

ecosystem. We also need to redesign our cropping system so that these natural forces keep the

pests within acceptable limits.

1





groups of beneficial insects need good nesting habitat and given half a chance, they’ll provide

the services we need.”

In most cases, Biopesticides are not meant to replace traditional products but to be used in

rotation, thus lowering the amount of synthetic chemical being applied. Over time, insects and

diseases build resistance to synthetic chemicals. By alternating synthetic chemicals with

biopesticides, the efficacy of the synthetic chemical is extended.

Microbes Used as Biopesticides

Microbes Organism

Bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), B sphaericus, B papilliae, Serratia entomophila

Viruses Nuclear polyhedrosis viruses, granulosis viruses, non-occluded baculoviruses

Fungi Beauveria netahizium, Entomophaga zoopthora, Paecilomyces normuraea

Protozoa Nosema, Thelohania vairimorpha

Current Scenario and Future of Biopesticides

At present there appears to be a situation in which biocontrol agents would provide a viable

commercial option, where conventional chemical control does not give sufficient control or

where there is a case of insecticide resistance; where conventional chemicals are too expensive;

or where government restricts application of chemicals. This is because either there is still no

awareness as far as hazards of chemical pesticides are concerned or there is general

disillusionment as to the efficacy of biocontrol methods.

Whatever the scenario, further research and development of biological pest control methods must

be given high priority and people in general and agriculturists in particular must be educated

about the dangers posed by handling and use of chemical pesticides. The general public should

also demand farm products where chemical pesticides are not used. All this will lead to a general

enlightenment about the benefits of biopesticides and will force governments to make policy

decisions reducing the use of chemical pesticides and increasing the use of a green alternative

Project Overview

Robert Holm, Ph.D. in 1963, IR-4 Executive Director( Rutgers University) theInterregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4 Project) is funded by the United States

1

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cook.rutgers.edu/www/cent-inst/ir-4.html





Department of Agriculture (Cooperative States Research Education and Extension Service andAgricultural Research Service Departments) to ensure that American farmers have an adequatesupply of pest control products registered for minor crops and for minor uses on major crops. IR-4 facilitates the registration of traditional crop protection chemicals, reduced risk products, and biopesticides. Biopesticides include microbials (fungi, bacteria, and viruses), low toxicity

biochemicals, pheromones, insect and plant growth regulators, and genetically transformedmicrobes and plants.

Minor crops are usually small acreage, specialty crops of high monetary value. They are thefoods we eat every day such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. They are also the commerciallygrown ornamental and floral plants, and the trees and turf grasses enriching us with their beauty.Minor crops in aggregate comprise over 40% of the value of all crops grown in the United States.In 27 states, the value of minor crops exceeds 50% of the value of all agricultural production. Onmany levels, minor crops play major roles in our lives and environment. Minor uses on major crops usually involve pests that occur sporadically or pests of limited regional significance.

IR-4 assistance is indicated when the potential market of a chemical for use on a low-acreagecrop is insufficient to justify the private investment necessary to obtain a federal registration.This "minor use problem" is not new. Minor crops have historically suffered from a lack of effective crop protection solutions including those which have a natural fit in thoughtful IPM programs. But as the costs associated with crop protection chemical reregistration’s andreregistration’s have escalated, so have the problems associated with minor crop pest control. IR-4 is the only public or private group that addresses the chemical clearance needs of minor cropfarmers. As such, the project prides itself on the high levels of grass-roots support it has earned.

IR-4 receives pesticide clearance requests from the people most knowledgeable of minor crop pest control problems. This includes growers, grower organizations, nurserymen, agricultural

scientists, and extension personnel. Essentially, IR-4 will consider a request from any interested party except the crop protection chemical registrant. After receiving a clearance request for a products use on a specific minor crop or group of crops, the request is reviewed and prioritized by external reviewers including growers, researchers, and extension personnel. In setting priorities, the importance of the pest problem, the availability of alternatives, the existence of data gaps (such as chemistry, toxicology, and environmental fate data), and the value to IPM andresistance management programs are all carefully considered. Each request is also reviewed bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the potential registrant prior to finalselection.

If a project is selected for research, cooperating scientists carry out field trials to develop cropsafety data and collect residue samples. The number, placement, and design of these field trialsare carefully considered so that they meet the requirements of the USEPA. The residue samplesare analyzed in IR-4 regional or satellite laboratories located at state agricultural experimentstations and ARS analytical laboratories. All work performed by IR-4 is fully compliant with themandated Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) procedures of the USEPA. These procedures areessential in assuring that the data generated by IR-4 meets the stringent requirements of federalreview agencies.

1



Once all the data have been gathered, IR-4 prepares a data package which is submitted to theUSEPA for approval. The petition must include data to show the amount of residue that will be present from the proposed use as well as toxicology data to demonstrate the safety of that amountof residue. IR-4 petitions almost always contain residue data but generally rely on referencedmanufactures’ toxicology data to fulfill the safety requirements.

When the petition is finally approved by the USEPA, a Notice followed by a Final Rule is published in the Federal Register which establishes a tolerance for the particular product on theminor crop. The registrant then labels the product for its intended use by growers once thetolerance has been established by the Final Rule.

The passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996 has dramatically changed thefocus of IR-4 programs the past few years. Prior to FQPA, IR-4 devoted a large portion of itsresources in reregistering older products. However, it became clear in 1995 that there were manynewer, safer (i.e. Reduced Risk) products being developed by the crop protection industry for themajor row crops but little effort was being expended to bring these chemistries to minor crop

farmers. IR-4 redefined its Strategic Plan and dedicated its efforts to partnering with theregistrants at an early stage on the development of the new products so that minor crop useswould be considered along with the major crop markets.

This program has led to over 50% of IR-4's project resources being dedicated to the safer,Reduced Risk chemistries since 1998. These newer products are now becoming available for minor crop growers and serve several critical needs. One of them is to provide replacements for the organophosphate and carbonate insecticides as well as the B2 carcinogen products likely to be restricted in their use on minor crops as the result of FQPA tolerance reviews. Of equalimportance is the utilization of these new chemistries in IPM programs. To receive a ReducedRisk classification, these products must be safe to fish, wildlife, avian species as well as little or

no impact on surface or groundwater. In addition, the new insecticides have little or no adviseeffects on beneficial insects allowing them to be fully utilized in IPM programs. Our biopesticide program sponsored 14 projects in 1998 and has resulted in the registering of numerous productsover the past few years which fit well into IPM programs.

This is an exciting time in agriculture with many changes being driven by regulatory andtechnology forces. IR-4 has positioned itself to be a partner with the crop protection industry,commodity groups, the land grant university system, the USDA and the growers to bring IPM-compatible crop protection solutions to minor crop growers.

Primary objective of IR-4 Biopesticide Program

The primary objective of the IR-4 Biopesticide Research Program is to further the developmentand registration of biopesticides for use in pest management systems for specialty crops or for minor uses on major crops. IR-4 data supported 39 new biopesticide food uses for eight products.These included: Reynoutria sachalinensis on all food commodities for 28 new food uses;AgriPhage on tomato and pepper; Polyoxin-D (Endorse) on ginseng; Bacillus subtilis (Serenade)

1



on horseradish; Psuedomonas syringae on sweet potato; Muscodor albus (Arabesque) on orange,cherry, and grape; Paecilomyces lilacinus strain 251 (MeloCon) on tomato and pepper; and Alternaria destruens strain 059 (Smolder) for control of dodder (Cuscuta spp.) in cranberry. The biopesticide program also funded 56 efficacy projects, several of which were co-funded by theEPA. Many of these products are important to the organic market.

The IR-4 Biopesticide Program and its Role in IPM

W.L. Biehn, Ph.D. In 1982, IR-4 Biopesticide Coordinator (Rutgers University) IR-4initiated a program to assist in the development and registration of biopesticides, regulated under FIFRA, for minor uses. Biopesticides include:

• Microbial pest control agents (MPCA) including viruses, bacteria and fungi.

• Biochemical pest control agents (BPCA) which are characterized by their natural originand non-toxic mode of action and include mating disruptant pheromones, repellants,

insect and plant growth regulators.

• Transgenic plants with pesticidal activity.

IR-4 works closely with state and federal scientists, growers, registrants and EPA to develop andregister biopesticides for minor uses. IR-4 provides both research funds and regulatory assistanceto further the development and registration of biopesticides. Specifically IR-4:

1. Aids in developing approved research protocols.

2. Funds small or large scale field efficacy and crop safety trials.

3. Assists in the development of safety and toxicology data .

4. Funds magnitude-of-residue studies if required.

5. Assists in obtaining Experimental Use Permits from EPA.

6. Prepares and submits petitions to EPA to support clearances.

7. Develops data to expand existing registrations for additional crop uses.

8. Provides assistance in meeting the requirements of Good Laboratory Practice for data

submitted to EPA.

9. Assists in preparing registration documents for submission to EPA.

Biopesticides and IPM

1



Biopesticides along with traditional chemical pesticides and reduced risk pesticides are importanttools that can be used in integrated pest management (IPM) programs. The advantage of many biopesticides is that they target a narrow range of pests and therefore minimize unintendedadverse effects on beneficials. Most biopesticides are compatible with IPM programs, becausethey allow natural enemies (beneficials) to exist.

In contrast, many traditional pesticides which are broader spectrum eliminate natural enemiesand thus induce some pest problems not controlled by one pesticide. Biopesticides are alsoconsidered to pose fewer risks to the environment and human health than traditional chemicalmethods of control. Many biopesticides are also effective at very low use rates (e.g. matingdisruptant pheromones).

One of the criteria IR-4 uses in selecting biopesticide projects for funding is the compatibility of the biopesticide in an IPM program.

A good example of what can be accomplished in the area of IPM with biopesticides is the

research supported by IR-4, the cranberry growers and 3M Canada to label the pheromonemating disruptant (E)-11-tetradecen-1-yl acetate for the management of the sparaganothisfruitworm in cranberries. In large scale field studies, it was determined that two applications at50 to 125 mls/acre (10-25 grams ai/A) are effective in the control of the sparaganothis fruitworm.The use of the sparaganthosis mating disruptant pheromone in cranberries has many advantagesincluding reduced use of organophosphate insecticides, reduced risk to workers and applicatorsand reduced risk to the environment.

The Role of IR-4 in Implementation of IPM for Arthropod Pests

“Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a system of pest management which utilizes all suitable

control techniques to reduce or maintain pest populations at acceptable levels” Says, KeithDorschner, Ph.D. IR-4 Entomology Coordinator (Rutgers University).It is vitally importantthat all techniques be integrated into a single coordinated pattern.

IPM should not be "chemically dependant" (Frisbie & Smith 1989) but neither should itoverlook the judicious use of chemical pesticides. A pesticide's toxicological profile, mode of action, spectrum of activity, and environmental fate should be carefully evaluated for use in IPM.It is a mistake to assume that a product will fit into an IPM program just because the activeingredient may be a naturally occurring compound. For example, although botanical pesticidessuch as neem have been promoted as alternatives to synthetic pesticides, these pesticides can beharmful to beneficial insects and aquatic organisms (see Bottrell 1996 for a summary of the

negative effects of neem on non-target organisms). To be acceptable to growers, an IPM programmust be effective in maintaining pest populations below levels which cause economic damage tothe crop and must have provisions for remedial action should pest populations surge. Thethoughtful use of appropriately chosen pesticides is a component of every successful IPM program.

The compatibility of a proposed use for IPM is an important consideration when the IR-4 projectreceives a pesticide clearance request to initiate research. The effectiveness in controlling the

1







target pest, the toxicity of the product to non-target pests and beneficials, and the effect of the product on the stability of the agroecosystem are all important factors in the decision process. Byspreading the exposure of the pest to multiple control tactics, IPM seeks to minimize the pest'sexposure to individual control tactics (Smith & van den Bosch 1967) thereby reducing the pest'sability to adapt. Therefore, even if adequate chemical pesticides are available to control a pest,

other products with different modes of action or spectrums of activity may be useful for IPM andinsecticide resistance management programs. These uses may receive a high priority ranking atIR-4 based solely upon their "fit" into IPM systems. The IR-4 project serves a vital role in thedevelopment of IPM systems for minor crops by securing tolerances for IPM-compatible pesticides and biologically-based pest control products.

A good example of what can be accomplished by the IR-4 program in the area of IPM andchemical insecticides can be found with our work to register imidacloprid on tomatoes and peppers. The introduction of the silverleaf whitefly into southern Florida had a devastating effecton tomato and pepper production. Growers were making up to 20 applications per crop cycle of non-specific chemical pesticides in order to obtain any whitefly suppression and produce a crop.

Such a massive use of pesticide is very disruptive and makes the implementation of IPM problematic. IR-4 data helped secure a registration for imidacloprid on tomatoes and pepperswhich resulted in whitefly insecticide applications being reduced from a maximum of 20 per crop to only one. The use of imidacloprid for pepper and tomato growers has numerousadvantages including reduced pesticide use, reduced risk to workers and consumers, increasedselectivity, and reduced risk to the environment.

IR-4 has an imidacloprid petition currently under review at the USEPA which will have a similar impact on cucurbit (melon, squash, and cucumber) production. Although imidacloprid will bewidely used by growers to control the silverleaf whitefly on these crops, the resultant reductionin pesticide use over current practices will be substantial and will allow for less disruption of the

biotic forces which maintain other pest species below damaging levels. As a result, IPM systemdevelopment on cucurbits will become practicable in areas with heavy whitefly pressure.

Another situation occurred not long ago in which IR-4 interceded on behalf of range grassgrowers and livestock ranchers to save the registration of permethrin for the control of rangecaterpillars. The original petition for this use was obtained by IR-4 in 1983 and permethrin wasregistered for this use in 1984. The range caterpillar not only destroys forage grasses but leaves behind exuviae that contain toxic spines. The toxin causes swelling in the mouths of livestock and they will refuse to graze in the infested area.

Dosages as low as 0.05 grams per acre of permethrin are highly efficacious compared to the 113grams of trichlorfon which was previously used. Under IPM, the treatment of incipient populations (usually about 80,000 acres) is effective in preventing the extremely large outbreaksof the past (over 1,000,000 acres treated in New Mexico during 1978) (Huddleston, personalcommunication).

In 1994, the registrants of permethrin announced that they planned to discontinue the registrationof the insecticide on range grasses. IR-4 ascertained that this minor use was still needed for rangegrass IPM, then contacted the product registrant and requested that they reconsider their

1



cancellation decision. The registrant agreed to retain the use of permethrin on range grasses after considering IR-4's arguments.

The IR-4 Project would like to hear from you. If you need assistance in the registration of a pestmanagement product that may be compatible with an IPM program on minor crops, please

contact one of the IR-4 Regional Field Coordinators listed below:

Examples from the IR-4 Entomology Program

Spinosad is the active ingredient in SuccessR and SpinTorR insecticides from DowAgroSciences. It is a fermentation product of a soil bacterium and has wide margins of safety toman and the environment. Spinosad is also a highly effective insecticide active againstLepidoptera larvae, thrips, leafminers, and certain other pest species including the Colorado potato beetle. Although very effective against important pests, spinosad applications leave most beneficial species unharmed. Spinosad will become an important chemical component of futureIPM programs.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has thoroughly reviewed thetoxicological and environmental fate data associated with spinosad and has determined that it is areduced risk insecticide. Very few pesticides can pass the rigorous screening for reduced risk status. In addition, EPA considers spinosad to be a potential alternative to organophosphates, aclass of insecticides currently being scrutinized by the Agency. Extremely low toxicity, low userates, and a short half-life in sunlight leading to low residues on crops were just a few of thefactors EPA used to classify spinosad as reduced risk.

IR-4 has received requests to register this product on almost every crop group and on manymiscellaneous crops. Recognizing both the need for spinosad on minor crops and the EPA's level

of comfort with the chemistry, IR-4 developed a plan to move spinosad into minor cropagriculture as soon as possible. The plan involved reducing the numbers of crops and field trialscompared to what would normally be required for a more toxic chemical pesticide. We then presented our proposal to EPA for consideration.

EPA was very receptive to the plan and saw it as a means to lessen food safety concerns while providing growers an effective control strategy for pest infestations. IR-4 will perform theresearch required to register spinosad on every minor crop with an identified need during 1999.Between the registrant and IR-4, spinosad will end up being registered for a total of 275 crops by2001 perhaps ten years ahead of schedule.

In the future, IR-4 will use similar logic to expand the registrations of reduced risk pesticides for minor crops. To do so addresses food safety issues and provides new IPM tools to growers.

Another situation occurred not long ago in which IR-4 interceded on behalf of range grassgrowers and livestock ranchers to save the registration of permethrin for the control of rangecaterpillars. The original petition for this use was obtained by IR-4 in 1983 and permethrin wasregistered for this use in 1984. The range caterpillar not only destroys forage grasses but leaves

1



behind exuviae that contain toxic spines. The toxin causes swelling in the mouths of livestock and they will refuse to graze in the infested area.

Dosages as low as 0.05 grams per acre of permethrin are highly efficacious compared to the 113grams of trichlorfon which was previously used. Under IPM, the treatment of incipient

populations (usually about 80,000 acres) is effective in preventing the extremely large outbreaksof the past (over 1,000,000 acres treated in New Mexico during 1978) (Huddleston, personalcommunication).

In 1994, the registrants of permethrin announced that they planned to discontinue the registrationof the insecticide on range grasses. IR-4 ascertained that this minor use was still needed for rangegrass IPM, then contacted the product registrant and requested that they reconsider their cancellation decision. The registrant agreed to retain the use of permethrin on range grasses after considering IR-4's arguments.

METHODS FOR PROTECT CROPS:-

IR-4 Projects Protect "Minor" Crops

Agricultural chemical producers readily test and seek U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) approval for new pesticides for blockbuster crops like corn and wheat.

That's because there's a potential to market a product that can be used on from 70 to 80 millionacres. The chemicals industry recoups its investment and makes a profit.

Other, smaller crops like mint and cucumbers are generally not worth the industry's attention.But these minor crops—defined as those grown on 300,000 acres or less—are helped by a

1



federal-state project known as Interregional Research Project No. 4, or IR-4. Its charge is toconduct field trials and collect data needed for EPA approval of so-called minor-use pesticides.

"But "minor" can be misleading," says Richard T. Guest, national director of the IR-4 program. He's stationed at the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station at Rutgers University

in New Brunswick.

"According to the most recent census of agriculture, 11 million acres of minor crops are

grown annually in the United States," says Guest. "They have a combined value of $32 billionand represent 42 percent of all crop sales. In 27 states, these minor crops exceed the value of allthe other major crops including corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat."

"Minor use" can also mean the infrequent use of a chemical product on high-acreage crops likecorn and wheat. Last year, the IR-4 project was responsible for 104 minor-use pesticideclearances; in 1994.

Since its inception in 1963, IR-4 has assisted with more than 4,400 clearances on some 208crops, from acerola (Barbados cherry) and alfalfa to yam and youngberry. While some of thesecrops have odd-sounding names like canistel (a tree fruitgrown in Florida) and kenaf (a plant that is being used for newsprint), most can be found in the fresh produce section of any supermarket.

The IR-4 Ornamentals Research Program, which was added in1977, has resulted in more than 3,600 additional pesticideclearances for 263 commercially grown floral and nurserycrops—from abelia and acacia to zebra plant and zinnia.

The program took on even more importance when its role wasexpanded in 1982 to include registration of biopesticides. Thisis a commitment to develop alternatives to chemical pestcontrols. IR-4 interacts with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA), and EPA to determine what data will need to becollected.

As a result of this cooperation, 68 biopesticides have beenapproved. One of these is granulosis virus to control codling

moths that attack apples, pears, walnuts, and plums. Another is cinnamaldehyde for the controlof Verticillium spot and dry bubble disease of mushrooms.

"The program is important to protect growers and consumers. It enables farmers and ranchers touse pesticides judiciously against weeds, diseases, and insects. Otherwise, some might betempted to spray anything that works and at incorrect rates. Because of IR-4, consumers get

foods that are wholesome, safe, and relatively inexpensive," says Paul H. Schwartz, Jr.

Field research director Sharon Benzen collectsromaine lettuce from an IR-4 test plot in Salinas,California. The samples will be frozen andshipped to a laboratory for pesticide residueanalyses.(K7431-17)

1

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/photos/oct96/k7431-17.htm



Schwartz coordinates the IR-4 program for USDA's Agricultural Research Service at Beltsville,Maryland. USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service are the leadagency. Regional laboratories servicing satellite locations are Davis, California; East Lansing,Michigan; Geneva, New York; and Gainesville, Florida.

"As a matter of fact," says Schwartz, "we believe the program may actually reduce overall pesticide use. Once we have all the data, we learn the proper doses farmers should be using. If that information weren't on the product label, they might apply more than they actually need.That would raise their costs and put more chemicals into the environment."

The IR-4 Project: Supplying Pest Management Tools for Specialty Crops for

Over 40 Years

For over forty years, the Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4 Project) has been the major resource for supplying pest management tools for specialty crops by developing research data to

support registration clearances.

Traditionally, agrichemical companies’ conduct only limited research on specialty crops. Thisresults in few pest management options being labeled for specialty crop growers. In 1963, theLand Grant Universities recognized this need and established the IR-4 Project to provide a meansfor U.S. growers to have specialty crops included on pesticide labels. The success of the IR-4Project, with additional USDA funding, is proven and can be measured in its development of data to support nearly 20,000 food use and ornamental horticulture label clearances.

Specialty Crops

Specialty crops include plants grown for human consumption and for use in ornamentalhorticulture.

Food Use Ornamental Horticulture

Fruits Nursery

Vegetables Greenhouse

Herbs Christmas trees

Nuts Landscape

Spices Sod Farms

Priorities and New Technologies

1



IR-4 uses an extensive stakeholder driven process to prioritize research to ensure that it isfocusing on the most critical pest management needs of specialty crop producers. IR-4 receivesrequests for projects through a Project Clearance Request (PCR). Except for the chemicalcompanies, just about anyone can submit a PCR. Requests are usually submitted by CooperativeExtension specialists, commodity groups and growers. Once we receive a request it is sent to the

appropriate chemical company to determine if they would register the use if IR-4 developed thenecessary data. If approved, the project goes into a list of potential projects. In September of each year projects are selected for the upcoming year at the Food Use Workshop andOrnamentals Workshop. The priority setting process engages representatives from state andfederal agricultural scientific communities, state extension systems, commodity and grower groups, the crop protection industry, food processors, and state and federal regulators.

Fig. The IR-4 regulatory clearance process for food crops.

1

http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Article%20Images/IR4_Fig02.gif



Fig. The IR-4 regulatory clearance process for ornamentalhorticulture crops.

Since 2000, over 80% of IR-4's research effort has involved new pest management technologieswith biopesticides and lower risk chemistries. This new technology effort is accomplishedthrough a three pronged approach consisting of: 1) partnering with the agricultural chemicalcompanies, 2) educating specialty crop stakeholders, and 3) partnering with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) to facilitate specialty crop registrations.

The other aspect of IR-4's emphasis on new technology is the educational facet of providing the

latest information. It became clear that with mergers and acquisitions, chemical companies wereworking with reduced staffs. Thus federal and state research and extension scientists were notalways given the ability to test the newest products. IR-4 instituted a mechanism through the publication of the "New Products Transitional Solution List" . The goal of this publication is tohelp growers learn about new technologies to assist in the transition away from crop protectiontools that are deemed vulnerable, due to the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and implementthe new Reduced Risk products.

Testimonials From IR-4 Fans

"Survival," says Ann George, "is what the IR-4 program means to the hops industry. We'restill in business." And that's important, for today's U.S. hops industry is a healthy one with anannual crop valued at $137 million—about 28 percent of the world's production.

But back in the late 1980's, things looked pretty bleak when hops growers lost registration on the primary miticide, herbicide, and insecticide they needed to stay competitive in a worldwidemarket.

1

http://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Article%20Images/IR4_Fig03.gif



“After using emergency exemptions from EPA on a year-by-year basis, we have now

obtained full registrations for a key insecticide and a miticide,” says George. She isadministrator of the Washington Hop Commission, as well as administrator of the U.S. HopIndustry Plant Protection Committee in Yakima,Washington.

George says the pesticide industry was unwilling togather data and petition EPA for labels that would permit use of the products on 42,000 acres of U.S.hop—a drop in the bucket compared to the market potential of nearly 80 million acres of corn.

Charles Matthews has a similar story. He's arepresentative with the Florida Fruit and VegetableAssociation in Orlando.

"The IR-4 Program assisted in providing datafor certain uses of an improved insecticide—imidacloprid," says Matthews.

"Growers are now allowed to use a single application of this chemical to control silverleaf whitefly on their tomatoes and melon thrips on peppers. Some other previously registeredinsecticides required up to 20 sprays to knock down insect populations.

"And," he adds, "imidacloprid is not harmful to beneficial insects and is compatible withintegrated pest management programs."

Conclusions and Recommendations

The National Research Council charged this committee with providing insight and informationon the future of chemical pesticide use in United States agriculture. The committee was chargedto:

• Identify the circumstances under which chemical pesticides may be required in future pest management.

• Determine what types of chemical products are the most appropriate tools for ecologically based pest management.

• Explore the most promising opportunities to increase benefits and reduce health andenvironmental risks of pesticide use.

• Recommend an appropriate role for the public sector in research, product development, product testing and registration, implementation of pesticide use strategies, and publiceducation about pesticides.

The scope of the study was to encompass pesticide use in production system processing, storage,and transportation of field crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamentals, fiber (including forest products), livestock, and the products of aquaculture. Pests to be considered included weeds,

The IR-4 program also checks out chemicals applied toornamentals like these dahlias being examined by technician TomTreat for evidence of damage.(K7433-12)

1

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/graphics/photos/oct96/k7433-12.htm



pathogens, and vertebrate and invertebrate organisms that must normally be managed to protectcrops, livestock, and urban ecosystems. All aspects of pesticide research were to be consideredidentification of pest behavior in the ecosystem, pest biochemistry and physiology, resistancemanagement, impacts of pesticides on economic systems, and so on.

Because its task was so broad and it had a relatively short period for its study, the committee metfive times over 11 months in 1998 and held three workshops to seek input from the public. Acritical early challenge was to refine the charge. The committee defined the future of agricultureto be the next 10–20 years. Beyond 20 years, it was felt that predicting technological innovationsand their effects is extremely difficult. For example, it would have been extremely prescient for someone to predict in 1979 that within 20 years transgenic varieties would constitute upwards of 25% of all planted acreage of some crops. A 20-year span apparently is also sufficient for adverse unexpected effects of technology to manifest themselves. In the case, for example, of thechlorinated hydrocarbons, widespread use beginning in the early 1950s culminated in regulatoryrestrictions in the early 1970s.

The committee also felt that the term pesticide required a more precise definition for the purposeof its report. The legal definition, set forth in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and RodenticideAct (FIFRA), is in part inconsistent with biological definitions of pesticides. The definition alsohas social aspects; public perceptions color related policy discussions and decisions.

Accordingly, the committee took a broad view of pesticide, including the strict legal definition, but also including microbial pesticides, plant metabolites, and agents used in veterinary medicineto control insect and nematode pests.

With respect to the first charge—to identify circumstances in which chemical pesticides willcontinue to be needed in pest management—the committee decided early during its deliberations

that an assessment of the full range of agricultural pests and of the composition and deploymentof chemical pesticides to control pests in various environments would be an impossible task because of the large volume of data and the number of analyses required to generate a credibleevaluation. The committee reviewed the literature and received expert testimony on the potentialeffects of pesticides on productivity, environment, and human health and on the potential toreduce overall risks by improving IPM approaches that use chemicals under diverse conditions— soils, crops, climates, and farm-management practices. The committee concluded that uses and potential effects of chemical pesticides and alternatives to improve pest management varyconsiderably among ecosystems. That conclusion was reinforced by expanded solicitation of expert opinion Overall, the committee concluded that chemical pesticides will continue to play arole in pest management for the foreseeable future, in part because environmental compatibilityof products is increasing —particularly with the growing proportion of reduced-risk pesticides being registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and in part becausecompetitive alternatives are not universally available. In many situations, the benefits of pesticide use are high relative to risks or there are no practical alternatives.

1



REFERENCES

Robert Holm 1963 the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4 Project) is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture IR-4 Executive DirectorRutgersUniversity.

Keith Dorschner , “Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a system of pest management

which utilizes all suitable control techniques to reduce or maintain pest populations at

acceptable levels” IR-4 Entomology Coordinator Rutgers University.

Bottrell, D.G. 1996. The Research Challenge for Integrated Pest Management in

Developing Countries: A Perspective for Rice in Southeast Asia. J. Agric. Entomol.

13(3): 185- 193.

Frisbie, R.E. & J.W. J. Smith. 1989. Biologically intensive integrated pest management:

The future. In: J.J. Mennard & A.L. Steinhauer [Eds.], pp. 151164. Entomological

Society of America Centennial National Symposium. Progress and Perspectives for the

21stCentury. Washington, D.C.

Smith, R.F. & R. Van den Bosch. 1967. Integrated control, pp. 295-340. In: W.W.

Kilgore & R.L. Doutt [Eds.], Pest control-biological, physical, and selected chemical

methods. Academic Press, New York.

Entomological Society of America Centennial National Symposium. Progress and

Perspectives for the 21stCentury. Washington, D.C.

1









Alavanja, M. C. R., D. P. Sandler, S. B. McMaster, S. H. Zahm, C. J. McDonnell, C. F.

Lynch, M. Pennybacker, N. Rothman, M. Dosemeci, A. E. Bond, and A. Blair. 1996. The

agricultural health study. Env. Health Pers. 104:362–9.

Bessin, R. T., E. B. Moser, and T. E. Reagan. 1990. Integration of control tactics for

management of the sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Louisiana sugarcane. J.

Eco. Ent. 83(4):1563–569.

Caldwell, A.M., K. Bantle-Stoner, G. W Cuperus, M. E. Payton, and R. C. Berberet.

2000. Media coverage of integrated pest management in major urban newspapers , Am.

Ent. 46:56–0

Gunsolus, J. L., G. A. Johnson, T. R. Hoverstad, F. R. Breitenbach, and J. K. Getting.

1995. Reevaluation of university herbicide evaluation trials. Proceedings of the North

Central Weed Science Society. 50:100–01.

Hoverstad, T. R., J. L. Gunsolus, G. A. Johnson, W. E. Lueschen, F. R. Breitenbach, and

J. K. Getting 1995. Corn herbicide evaluation for southern Minnesota, efficacy and an

economic analysis. Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society: 101–102. Laffont, J.J. 1988. Fundamentals of Public Economics. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.

Levy, S. 1998. Beyond Silicon Valley. Newsweek. 132(19):44–50.

Losey, J. E., L. S. Rayor, and M. E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch

larvae. Nature 399:214.

Maxwell, B. D. 1999. My View. Weed Science 47:129.

NRC (National Research Council). 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Parker, D. D. Zilberman, and F. Castillo. 1998. Office of technology transfer, the

privatization of university innovations, and agriculture. Choices 1998 (1st

quarter):19–25. Petersen, R. K. D. 2000. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology and pesticides:

recent understandings and implications for risk communication. Am. Ent: 46:8–16.

Ruttan, V. W. 1980. Agricultural Research and the Future of American Agriculture. Staff

Paper P80-17. University of Minnesota.

Sandmo, A. 1971. On the theory of competitive firm underprice uncertainty. Am. Ec.

Rev. 61:65–73.

Saxena, D., S. Flores, and G. Stotzky. 1999. Transgenic plants: insecticidal toxin in root

exudataes from Bt corn. Nature 402:480

Schuh, G. E. 1999. Providing food security for a burgeoning global population. Talk

presented at AAAS conference on Science and Technology for a Changing World.

November 1, 1999, Washington, DC.

Schultz, T. W. 1975. The value of the ability to deal with disequilibrium. Jo. of Ec. Lit.:

3:827–846.

USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2000. NRI Annual Report: Fiscal Year 1998.

Washington, DC: USDA.

1



Vangessel, M. J., E. E. Schweizer, D. W. Lybecker, and P. Westra. 1996. Integrated weed

management systems for irrigated corn ( Zea mays) production in Colorado – a case study.

Weed Science. 44(2) 423–428.

Thompson, D., Braverman, M., Novack, S., and Palmer, C. 2006. The IR-4 Project:

Supplying Pest Management Tools for Specialty Crops for Over 40 Years. Online.

APSnet Features. doi: 10.1094/APSnetFeature-2006-0606

1

Documents

Biopestisides in Ipm 1